Appeal 6004138

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant and the Council acknowledge that the proposed building has already been erected on site, and this was observed during my visit. The plans appeared to be consistent with what has been erected on site, and I have therefore assessed the appeal on this basis.

The South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (March 2026) (Local Plan) was adopted by the Council in March 2026. In subsequent correspondence, the Council set out the principal Local Plan policies now relevant to this appeal. The appellant was given the opportunity to comment on these policies, and I have had regard to the representation received in determining the appeal in accordance with the newly adopted Local Plan.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal development on:  the character and appearance of the area;  the living conditions of neighbouring residents at No 17 & No 19 [name] (No 17 & No 19) in regard to outlook; and,  flood risk.

The appeal site occupies a prominent corner plot within a reasonably modern residential estate. It is occupied by a detached dwelling, the rear garden of which runs parallel to the private drive, at an elevated level. While the estate comprises a mix of house types and densities, there is nonetheless a strong sense of architectural cohesion arising from the consistent appearance and external finishes of buildings. I noted several domestic outbuildings located at nearby properties, including garages and sheds. These are generally modest in scale, unobtrusively located, and typically constructed of brick or timber.

The outbuilding is situated in the corner of the garden closest to the private drive, which is set at a lower ground level. It spans the full width of the rear boundary fence and extends partway along the side boundary wall. By reason of its overall height, it projects above both boundary treatments by a noticeable degree. While its scale remains subservient to the appeal property, and is broadly consistent with domestic ancillary buildings, its massing and prominent siting result in a poor relationship with its surroundings, with the structure appearing unduly dominant within the street scene. Further, while the external finish may not be uncommon in residential settings, it is nevertheless at odds with the established built form, resulting in a conspicuous appearance. For these reasons, the outbuilding reads as an incongruous and obtrusive form of development.

Additional planting would provide some limited visual softening of the built form. However, it would not mitigate the harm arising from its undue dominance. Indeed, attempts to screen the building would serve to emphasise its prominence rather than reduce it. Moreover, planting is not indestructible and any failure, removal, or deterioration over time would expose the full extent of the proposal’s dominant and jarring appearance. As such, planting would not provide a permanent or effective means of screening the development.

In coming to this decision, I acknowledge that there is an outbuilding of a similar design, scale and appearance located in the garden of a neighbouring property. However, its differing orientation, with its length aligned adjacent to the side boundary, and its set back from the private drive, means that it is not dominant or conspicuous. It is therefore materially different to the appeal proposal.

Accordingly, I find that the appeal development harms the character and appearance of the area contrary to Local Plan Policy SWDPR 28 where it seeks to secure a high design quality which is appropriate to its surroundings and local character. In failing to achieve a high-quality design the proposal would also conflict with Policy SWDPR 05 of the Local Plan. The proposal would also conflict with the design principles set out in the Council’s Design Guide1 which seek to ensure that domestic outbuildings are similar in style to the existing property, taking account of materials, the local character and the level of visibility of the building from surrounding public areas.

The outbuilding is positioned close to the common boundaries with No 17 and No 19, and although single storey, it rises above the intervening close-boarded fencing by a notable portion. Whilst it affects only a limited section of No 17’s rear boundary, it extends the full width of No 19’s rear garden, fully enclosing it to one side.

By reason of its size, scale, bulk, and proximity to neighbouring properties, the outbuilding introduces a substantial mass of built form above the established boundary treatment. It looms over the rear garden of No 19 and dominates the 1 [name] Planning Document (March 2018) outlook. This results in an unacceptable sense of enclosure and diminishes the enjoyment of the occupants’ private outdoor space. Although the outbuilding is not directly opposite the rear boundary of No 17 and is therefore viewed at an angle, it remains clearly visible from the rear garden and, by virtue of its scale and siting, reads as an overbearing and oppressive addition. The absence of objection from the current occupiers of No 17 does not indicate that the proposal is acceptable in planning terms.

While some degree of overlooking may previously have occurred, this would be typical of residential environments such as this and would not have resulted in undue harm. In any event, any perceived privacy benefit would be outweighed by the harm resulting from the proposal’s oppressive form. Furthermore, while a higher boundary fence could potentially be erected, its visual impact and presence would be materially different from the bulk and mass of the outbuilding and is therefore not a comparable fallback.

Consequently, I find that the appeal development has a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents at No 17 & No 19 in regard to outlook. It therefore conflicts with Policy SWDPR 28 of the Local Plan where it seeks to ensure that development is not overbearing and provides an acceptable level of outlook.

To minimise flood risk, improve water quality and groundwater recharge, and enhance biodiversity and amenity interest, Policy SWDPR 39 of the Local Plan requires all development proposals (as appropriate) to demonstrate that the site drainage and run off will be managed in a sustainable and co-ordinated way. Notwithstanding the submitted [name], were I minded to allow the appeal, I am satisfied that the provision of a water butt, secured by condition, would provide adequate means to reduce surface water discharge to ground in accordance with the requirements of Local Plan Policy SWDPR 39.

While the appeal development may ordinarily have been permitted under the GPDO2, the appeal property does not enjoy permitted development rights (PD). The reasons for their removal are of somewhat limited relevance in this case. The effect of the proposal on character and appearance, together with living conditions, is a key consideration of any planning application and must be assessed against the development plan. For the reasons set out above, the proposal conflicts with the relevant policies. Accordingly, while I acknowledge that similar development at neighbouring properties benefiting from permitted development rights would not be subject to the same level of scrutiny or control, and I recognise that there was no intention to carry out unauthorised development, these matters do not alter my

The appeal site is not located within the Green Belt, a protected landscape, or within or near any designated heritage assets. Further, while the principle of development is generally supported by the development plan and the proposal would not compromise highway safety, ecology, landscape character, daylight, 2 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) privacy, land contamination or the adequacy of garden space, these are neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of the appeal proposal.

Notwithstanding the comments made regarding the alleged raising of ground levels at the appeal site, and the Council’s lack of a site visit prior to determining the planning application, my assessment of the proposal is based on my own observations of the site conditions at the time of my site visit.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.